add_functional_test

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It reveals the key behavioral trait that manually-added tests are preserved during model regeneration. But it does not discuss idempotency, side effects, or whether duplicates are allowed. Status parameter explanation is in schema, not added here.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second adds valuable context about usage and preservation. No filler, well front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given an output schema exists and schema coverage is high, the description is mostly adequate. It explains the role in manual test addition and preservation. Could be improved by mentioning relationship with associate_functional_test or import_functional_tests, but not essential.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 83%, so most parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool registers a functional test manually for objectives. It distinguishes from generation, which already specifies tests, and implies it's for hand-authoring extra tests, differentiating from sibling tools like import_functional_tests or submit_functional_tests.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says 'Generation already specifies the tests to implement, so this is for hand-authoring an extra test', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also notes preservation across regeneration. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.